• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There are no material objects

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Exactly, that assumption is mere woo. The position is called "Naive Realism". There is an article in Wikipedia about it.
Click to expand...

But science hasn't detected any non-material entities. If they're undetectable, in what sense are they part of the natural world?

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Because they are the two faces of the same coin.
Click to expand...

So, if all the materialists in the world died, so would the non-materialists?
 
Medieval perspective is, as we know, "flat".
Click to expand...
No. Medieval European art is simply highly stylized, in a manner most modern viewers aren't familiar with. You're confusing aesthetics with one's actual perspective, and posted an artistic question in the science forum.
 
He's trying to reinterpret the scientific view of the world as being a stilted perspective, saying that the materialist view of the world is subjective rather than objective, so he can start claiming that his theories are better because they embrace a wider view.

And yet, this computer continues to function.
 
Twiler said:
But science hasn't detected any non-material entities. If they're undetectable, in what sense are they part of the natural world?
Click to expand...

Err..... science deals with facts, we explain such facts using models and assumptions. It is irrelevant (from the scientific point of view, if things were "made of matter" or "made of god dreams".

There are non material entities. What's the value of a coin?

Twiler said:
So, if all the materialists in the world died, so would the non-materialists?
Click to expand...

I fail to see the reason for your comment. If all the atheists in the world died, so would the theists? And yet, atheism would not exist if there were not theists in the world. Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
You have not and that is not a good read. Please list some of the immaterial things in the universe. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Im not sure if you are obtuse on purpose. :rolleyes: You are fighting a strawman, but I don't expect you to be familiar with logical fallacies. Still, for your pleasure, please tell me what is a meaning? what is a compromise? what is the value of a coin? what is loyalty? what is balance? what is an analogy? what is a conundrum? what is logic? what is a number? what is a relation? what is an assumption? There you go.
 
Last edited:
All while using one of the most stylized artistic modes of expression I've ever seen--one which is inherently very, very restrictive and stilted (and I say this as a fan of the style). This should be fun.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Err..... science deals with facts, we explain such facts using models and assumptions. It is irrelevant (from the scientific point of view, if things were "made of matter" or "made of god dreams".

There are non material entities. What's the value of a coin?
Click to expand...

That's information, not a non-material entity. Descartes split the world into material and non-material entities so he could reconcile 'free will' with determinism. Information has nothing to do with that.

Besides, if materialists didn't believe in information, why would they have debates?

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Now, are you being obtuse on purpose? I fail to see the reason for your comment. If all the atheists in the world died, so would the theists? And yet, atheism would not exist if there were not agains the beliefs of theists. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Hmm, no, people who match our description of atheists could exist, even if the word 'atheist' did not. If no theists existed, everyone would be an atheist, they simply wouldn't refer to themselves as such, because that part of language wouldn't exist.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Im not sure if you are obtuse on purpose. :rolleyes: You are fighting a strawman, but I don't expect you to be familiar with logical fallacies. Still, for your pleasure, please tell me what is a meaning? what is a compromise? what is the value of a coin? what is loyalty? what is balance? what is an analogy? what is a conundrum? what is logic? what is a number? what is a relation? what is an assumption? There you go.
Click to expand...

Fighting a strawman of your making. Are there immaterial things in the universe? It's a simple question. How obtuse are you? What do you mean by 'what'? Stop waffling and actually say something. You wouldn't recognize a logical fallacy even if it jumped up and bit you on the backside. Enjoy the time you have left here.
 
Last edited:
Twiler said:
Hmm, no, people who match our description of atheists could exist, even if the word 'atheist' did not. If no theists existed, everyone would be an atheist, they simply wouldn't refer to themselves as such, because that part of language wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point!
 
dafydd said:
Fighting a strawman of your making. Are there immaterial things in the universe? It's a simple question. How obtuse are you? What do you mean by 'what'? Stop waffling and actually say something.
Click to expand...

An obtuse woo, wow. :rolleyes: Did you understood my post... at all? :rolleyes:
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Exactly my point!
Click to expand...

When you're playing chess, you can't just reach over and knock down your opponent's king. It is necessary to do things that actually make sense.

In short: What are you talking about?

You said that the existence of one group of people was dependent on their opposite. Now, you are saying that they are not dependent on their opposite?

In this example, NO theists have ever existed, so there is NO set of words to distinguish atheism and theism. IF all the materialists vanished, the set of words distinguishing materialism from non-materialism would NOT. The existence of non-materialists is NOT dependent on materialists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom